Two Questions

[Azunite]

Two simple questions:

Intel or AMD
ATI or NVidia?

[PJay]

Intel and Nvidia, hands down.

Nvidia have done SLI really succesfully for many generations of cards, ATI cards have always been problems in my experience. Nvidia are really good about driver support and updates. The are leading the way in multicore technology and even threatening intel for some apps, and Intel are scaleing up to more and more cores all the time.

[Azunite]

That is what I think but people still keep saying that AMD is better, cheaper etc.

[AutoPlay]

AMD: Better support for multi threading atm, 1095T beats the 980x under heavy clocking

ATI. Nvidia are moving towards mobile chips.

[PJay]

AMD: Better support for multi threading atm,
I'd be surprised, with all the cores in the top end intel stuff - where did you get this from?



1095T beats the 980x under heavy clocking


I'd be worried about stability, risk to the card and heat generated by overclocking. Couldn't you just clock up the other card too by that argument?


ATI. Nvidia are moving towards mobile chips.
How is that an argument against their graphics cards?

[AutoPlay]

I'd be surprised, with all the cores in the top end intel stuff - where did you get this from?

the 980x and the 1095t both have 6 logical cores and 6 physical.



I'd be worried about stability, risk to the card and heat generated by overclocking. Couldn't you just clock up the other card too by that argument?

LN2 Testing bed, -184 degrees on the AMD -160 on the 980x. 7Ghz AMD 6.8Ghz Intel.

ill get the CPUZ files off a forum i go on for verification.



How is that an argument against their graphics cards?

Because by the end of 2011 Nvidia wont have a dedication graphics line

[PJay]

Because by the end of 2011 Nvidia wont have a dedication graphics line

Don't know what makes you think that - they've released a 3 year roadmap for GPUs (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/21/nvidia_roadmap/).

I'm still curious about what you said about multi threading on AMD, i haven't been able to find anything that says that but its all a bit techy.

It might be a non issue for a gamer at the moment I think i'm right in saying most games are single threading currently but i guess this will become relevant to gaming eventually.

[AutoPlay]

Are you crazy?

Counter strike source utilizes 2 cores lol thats almsot 11 years old haha

BFBC2 uses 6 cores

[PJay]

Fair enough. Is that cores or threads? And how is AMD better than intel at it?

[AutoPlay]

Cores and threads, a single core can produce 12 threads, so 6 cores can produce 72 threads

[PJay]

Nooooo can't believe I wrote this all out then hit 'back' by accident lol.

PrinceOfMadness - hope this helps cos this is stuff that always gets confusing when you look into upgrading, and i realised I didn't know much about the details.
I've learned a lot so thought i'd share where i'd got to.

Ok so as I understand it now there are 'user threads' and 'kernel threads'. User threads are basically ones the programmers create and it doesn't look like there is a limit on the number of user threads. (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1718465/optimal-number-of-threads-per-core).

Seems that most desktop CPUs have a limit of 1 or 2 kernel threads, which the user threads sit on top of, and the OS is basically in control of those threads.

Still can't find anything that says AMD are better than Intel, but it all sounds pretty theoretical anyway.

As far as graphics cores, I have 2 x 9800 GTX+ with 128 cuda cores each. So I make that 256 graphics cores. The latest Nvidia cards have 512 cores and you can have 3 of them (1,536 cores!). (These cores are streamlined for speed and aren't each as complex as a main CPU core, but obviously their strength is in their numbers).

So, tech details aside, all I can say is my quad core intel and sli nvidias can run any game I've played at full graphics at the native res of my monitor which I think is 1920x1200 or something off the top of my head. I don't have to have anything over clocked, which means that my system doesn't overheat or become unstable (which was what i meant above). I am betting TES5 and games like that will mean I have to turn a few things down but we'll see.

[Commander Thor]

Generally Intel & nVidia are better for gaming rigs, the power you get for the price is pretty unmatched.
AMD & ATI are generally better for 3D & animation work. They're just built better for the raw data that 3D & animation programs produce.
So for me, it depends on the application
If I was building a gaming rig, I'd choose Intel & nVidia. If I was building a 3D & animation rig, I'd choose AMD & ATI.

[AutoPlay]

Nooooo can't believe I wrote this all out then hit 'back' by accident lol.

PrinceOfMadness - hope this helps cos this is stuff that always gets confusing when you look into upgrading, and i realised I didn't know much about the details.
I've learned a lot so thought i'd share where i'd got to.

Ok so as I understand it now there are 'user threads' and 'kernel threads'. User threads are basically ones the programmers create and it doesn't look like there is a limit on the number of user threads. (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1718465/optimal-number-of-threads-per-core).

Seems that most desktop CPUs have a limit of 1 or 2 kernel threads, which the user threads sit on top of, and the OS is basically in control of those threads.

Still can't find anything that says AMD are better than Intel, but it all sounds pretty theoretical anyway.

As far as graphics cores, I have 2 x 9800 GTX+ with 128 cuda cores each. So I make that 256 graphics cores. The latest Nvidia cards have 512 cores and you can have 3 of them (1,536 cores!). (These cores are streamlined for speed and aren't each as complex as a main CPU core, but obviously their strength is in their numbers).

So, tech details aside, all I can say is my quad core intel and sli nvidias can run any game I've played at full graphics at the native res of my monitor which I think is 1920x1200 or something off the top of my head. I don't have to have anything over clocked, which means that my system doesn't overheat or become unstable (which was what i meant above). I am betting TES5 and games like that will mean I have to turn a few things down but we'll see.

the lastest ATi card has 1408 cores. you can have 4 of them

needless to say thats more processing power lol

anyway, they are both better at different tasks

[Nelson]

AMD and nVidia.
Always have used them, they've never failed me.

[Zazu]

I've actually found the one AMD chip I've had to be a LOT more stable and reliable than all the Intel chips I've had in my desktop before, so AMD wins there.

I've also always found nVidia to just generally perform a lot better than any ATI gcard I've ever had, so nVidia wins that one.

[darkwoon]

Depends on what you're aiming for.

For CPUs, AMD are strong heavily threaded tasks, and tend to have a better price/performances ratio. Intel are stronger on less threaded tasks, and usually have a much better power consumption profile.

For graphic cards, again it depends on what you do with it. If you are under Linux, stick with NVidia - AMD/ATi drivers are still not good enough. Under Windows, I'd say it is a draw.

[AutoPlay]

Depends on what you're aiming for.

For CPUs, AMD are strong heavily threaded tasks, and tend to have a better price/performances ratio. Intel are stronger on less threaded tasks, and usually have a much better power consumption profile.

For graphic cards, again it depends on what you do with it. If you are under Linux, stick with NVidia - AMD/ATi drivers are still not good enough. Under Windows, I'd say it is a draw.


this by far is the best post i have seen